Lee Smith Agrees Cheaters Should Not Be In HOF

Lee Smith, signing autographs at AAA Iowa, chimes in following Sandberg's comments on Sosa and others being associated with steriod use. Read his comments here.

4 months ago mrcubsfan 14 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Define "Cheaters"

For example, take Steroids. They were not “banned” by baseball until a certain date. They were also illegal in the United States. But they were not illegal everywhere. If a player, during the offseason lived and trained in a location where they were legal and used them in that location would that be cheating? Remember, at the time they were not against the rules of baseball and were legal in the location where the player was living and training?

Of Sanitary Socks. Baseball has rules about Uniforms. A player “cheats” and wears his uniform differently because he believes that it gives him an advantage. In fact, he does have an advantage because he believes he has an advantage. That’s violating a rule of baseball. is that cheating?

by frustratedfan on Jun 24, 2009 9:59 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Are you serious? Sanitart socks?

"Enough foreplay- let's get crackin'"- Fred Garvin

by davidalanu on Jun 24, 2009 1:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not fully

but the problem is drawing lines. Of course the “cheating” by using Sanitary Socks isn’t serious. The question is where do you draw the line? Do you expel the players from the Greenie error? (See Ball 4). The general consensus is that a couple of major Hall of Famers from the 50/60’s used greenies and in fact may have even given them out to his teammates.

Consider my “steroid” example. Is that cheating? I can’t see how it can be considered cheating. If THAT is not cheating, then is it appropriate to punish the players that engaged in the same exact conduct, they just happened to engage in this conduct on different ground. If we punish the one, but not the other, its not fair to the one not punished. But if we punish both, its unfair to the one that didn’t violate any rule or law. The only reasonable outcome…. don’t punish either.

That’s why baseball rules are important.

by frustratedfan on Jun 24, 2009 1:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Augh...

Performance enhancing drugs / steroids are a FAR CRY from ingesting greenies, slathering Vaseline on a baseball, taking a nail file to a baseball, sharpening one’s spikes… Steroids signficantly altered individuals and their ability to produce on the ballfield. Their use has been so pervasive that it make a mockery of the game. How in bloody hell does that equate with players taking pep pills or a 43 year old friggin Gaylord Perry putting some Vaseline or Brylcream on a baseball?!?!? Good friggin Lord I am sick and tired of this rationalization and excuse making for steroids. It’s both ignorant and sick.

$136 million payroll for a .500 style ballclub. Good work Jim.

by BLou on Jun 24, 2009 2:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Answer the question

If a player, before they were banned by MLB, used Steroids in a country where they were legal, would he be cheating?

If that’s not cheating, why should we then punish someone who engaged in the same conduct in a different geographic setting.

Its why the key question is “Did the Player violate an MLB rule?” If so, they cheated, if not, they may have violated a law, but they did not cheap. Its the only “fair” way to do this.

by frustratedfan on Jun 24, 2009 10:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not going to argue with the "rationalizers" on steroids

You can have that argument with yourself. Thankfully the scarlett letter if FINALLY starting to be placed on the jersey of those guilty…McGwire, Clemens, Bonds, Giambi, Palmiero, Manny, A-Rod, Sammy. With more names to come. Mike Piazza should start getting nervous because I have a hunch he is the next big name to get zapped.

$136 million payroll for a .500 style ballclub. Good work Jim.

by BLou on Jun 24, 2009 10:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Answer the Question

Answer the question. If a player used Steroids, in a country where they were legal, before they were banned by baseball, how did that player cheat? Is it your theory that even if the conduct was legal and not banned by a rule of baseball it was cheating?

by frustratedfan on Jun 25, 2009 9:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not going to battle wits with liberal mamby pamby interpretation of things

Steroids and performance enhancing drugs are illegal in the United States, period. I could care less if a banana republic like the Dominican doesn’t have a ban on steroids. These players were employed by baseball teams in the United States of America.

$136 million payroll for a .500 style ballclub. Good work Jim.

by BLou on Jun 25, 2009 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Got it

You are willing to punish someone who didn’t violate a rule of baseball and didn’t violate the law. Yup. And you accuse me of applying a liberal mamby pamby interpretation. If actually paying attention to the law is liberal, so be it.

The hypocrisy of the situation is obvious.

by frustratedfan on Jun 25, 2009 9:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What now every ex-cub

Tom, Dick, and Harry is going to come out and discuss who should or shouldn’t be in the HOF? I say who cares. Its a club just like any other, if you were well liked, respected, and have to some degree the stats to get in you will. If the press was not a big fan, or you played for a team that is not on their list of favorites – then you bide your time. I say as fans why do we give a damn. Its like a fraternity not everyone gets to pledge, but why its any skin off our nose I don’t understand. I say treat cooperstown for what it is, a museum, and let the players themselves care about getting into the club. Seriously, do I care that my co-worker down the hall is a member of the Rotary Club? I think you can guess the answer. I wish we would just stop caring so much about it.

"Ask Dad. He'll know. And on the off chance he doesn't, he'll make something up"

by StevenABQ on Jun 24, 2009 10:23 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Well...

I don’t think Ryne Sandberg or Lee Smith are any “Tom, Dick and Harry,” but rather instead former ballplayers who enjoyed long and productive major league careers. They are AMPLY qualified to opine on this subject, thank you very much.

$136 million payroll for a .500 style ballclub. Good work Jim.

by BLou on Jun 24, 2009 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

For someone who uses hyperbole

to a fault, I would think you would have attacked the main point I was getting at. The HOF is a joke, not intended for fan consumption. To be this concerned over whether a ballplayer is embraced by sportswriters or even later his peers, and welcomed to a club…just really is not that big of a deal. I never said that current or past ballplayers should not “opine” on the topic. I mainly suggested that as fans we probably don’t need to give a shit.

"Ask Dad. He'll know. And on the off chance he doesn't, he'll make something up"

by StevenABQ on Jun 24, 2009 3:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Beg to differ

While baseball has been permitted to become a cesspool under the wondrous leadership of Bud Selig and the Players Union, the Hall of Fame does indeed maintain its mystical appeal. Enshrinement into Cooperstown is a very big deal for the majority of baseball fans. And all in all I have to say the Baseball Writers of America have done a damned fine job so far of admitting who belongs and keeping out who doesn’t. My only current beef is with the omission of Bert Blyleven and Andre Dawson. Blyleven WILL gain admission someday, but it will be at the hand of the Veterans Committee. Dawson WILL get voted in. So despite my current angst over those two, they both WILL get in.

And let me cut you off before you even start. No, I do not believe Ron Santo should be in the Hall of Fame. He was a very good ballplayer, but not a great ballplayer. Apt comparison to modern era ballplayer would be Jim Edmonds.

$136 million payroll for a .500 style ballclub. Good work Jim.

by BLou on Jun 24, 2009 5:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well I do agree to a point

Not sure I do on the “mystical appeal” thing, I think that has seriously diminished. And I think it will continue to do so. As sports writers get older and younger writers infiltrate the ranks the standards will change. And the “cesspool” of baseball will spill into the HOF. But Field of Dreams moments aside, I still think it is an important accomplishment (perhaps more important 20 + years ago) but not necessarily one that demands the attention some fans give it at present. I mean look at the arguments being made – greenies is equated to steroid usage? The days of wine and roses are over, it will take this Cubs fan quite some time before I lose the cynaiism.

"Ask Dad. He'll know. And on the off chance he doesn't, he'll make something up"

by StevenABQ on Jun 24, 2009 6:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs